From: j.clarke.873638@gmail.com
In article , dtravel@sonic.net says...
>
> On 12/30/2015 1:04 PM, Your Name wrote:
> > In article , Gutless
> > Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> >> Your Name wrote in
> >> news:301220151847246288%YourName@YourISP.com:
> >>> In article , Dimensional Traveler
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 12/29/2015 4:36 PM, Your Name wrote:
> >>>>> In article ,
> >>>>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> >>>>>> Your Name wrote in
> >>>>>> news:291220151042342329%YourName@YourISP.com:
> >>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>> <9457ee4f-9710-4f61-af60-68cb8478a483@googlegroups.com>,
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 7:51:43 PM UTC-5, Gutless
> >>>>>>>> Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Expectations are running so high that a lot of people are
> >>>>>>>>> referring to him as "Jar Jar Abrams." (That joke will
> >>>>>>>>> almost certainly provide more amusement, both
> >>>>>>>>> qualitatively and quantitaviely, than the movie.)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Well, Terry? Do you stand by this comment from November?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yep, it's certainly true that a lot of people are calling
> >>>>>>> the lazy, talentless hack "Jar Jar Abrams" ... me being one
> >>>>>>> of them.
> >>>>>>> :-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> He's earned a lot of scorn for what he's done ot Star Trek,
> >>>>>> though he's gotten more than he deserves, mostly for the
> >>>>>> fact that what he made, while decent action movies, wasn't
> >>>>>> even remotely Star Trek.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Now that I think about it, though, I'm more moderate in my
> >>>>>> hopes for the next two movies, especially the last one. As
> >>>>>> he demonstrated, quite vividly, with Alias and Lost, he's
> >>>>>> *much* better at starting interesting storiest han at
> >>>>>> finishing them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't think he's ever finished anything. He always seems to
> >>>>> walk out part way through to go and do something else,
> >>>>> meanwhile leaving the hopeless mess he made behind for
> >>>>> someone else to attempt to fix up.
> >>>>
> >>>> I was going to say something similar. Abrams has also reached
> >>>> a point of popularity in Hollywood where studios will hire Bad
> >>>> Robot just so they can slap his name in the credits somewhere.
> >>>
> >>> You have to wonder why since he's a talentless hack who ruins
> >>> everything he touches ... then again, this is the same
> >>> Hollyweird that thinks creating idiotic "reboots" is actually a
> >>> good idea. :-\
> >>
> >> You make the mistake of thinking that making movies is about making
> >> movies. It's not. It's about making *money*. When you already own
> >> the franchise, there is a reliable business model for extracting
> >> more moeney out of it by making reboots that suck that is more
> >> profitable than making movies that suck while also paying for new
> >> material.
> >
> > They'd make a lot more money if they actually made movies that fit into
> > the existing franchise and didn't "suck". Unfortunately, there's almost
> > nobody left in Hollyweird with the actual creative talent or
> > willingness to do that these days. They'd rather just lazily butcher
> > someone else's hard work to make a quick buck from all the morons. :-(
> >
> You have to remember that in order to get the people with the money to
> fund the production, you have to pitch it to them (and make them
> believe) that you will do it _better_ than the original. That pretty
> much rules out "fitting into" an existing franchise. Plus anyone with
> an ego big enough to survive to _get_ the meeting with the money people
> is by definition not going to "settle" for just doing what has already
> been done.
You don't have to convince them that it will be better. They don't care
if it's "better". You have to convince them that making whatever you
want will earn more money for them than making something else.
Star Drek is crap, but it's profitable crap that makes more money than
real Trek ever did.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
